In complex litigation, the selection of an expert witness can significantly influence the outcome of a case. Whether the matter involves negligent security, premises liability, security operations, workplace violence, or security industry standards, attorneys are often faced with the challenge of identifying an expert who possesses the necessary qualifications, experience, credibility, and communication skills to assist the trier of fact.

The process of retaining an expert witness should involve more than simply locating someone with an impressive résumé. Effective expert witness selection requires careful evaluation of qualifications, prior testimony, professional reputation, methodology, and the ability to communicate complex concepts clearly and objectively.

Begin with the Subject Matter

Before selecting an expert, counsel should develop a clear understanding of the issues involved in the case. In security-related litigation, the relevant expertise may involve security management, premises liability, security operations, crime analysis, risk assessment, workplace violence prevention, security staffing, access control, investigations, or security industry standards.

Understanding the subject matter helps ensure that the expert’s qualifications align with the specific issues presented by the case.

Qualifications Matter—But They Are Not Everything

Professional credentials, certifications, education, and experience are important considerations when evaluating an expert witness. However, qualifications alone do not guarantee effectiveness.

Attorneys should consider whether the expert possesses practical experience directly related to the issues in dispute. In security cases, operational experience is often as important as academic credentials. An expert who has developed, implemented, supervised, and evaluated real-world security programs may provide perspectives that extend beyond theoretical knowledge.

Investigate the Expert’s Background

A thorough review of an expert’s professional history is essential.

Areas to evaluate include:

• Education and professional certifications
• Employment history
• Publications and presentations
• Professional association memberships
• Prior testimony experience
• Disciplinary actions, if any
• Public statements or publications related to the subject matter

Any inconsistencies, exaggerations, or unsupported claims can become fertile ground for cross-examination and may negatively affect credibility.

Review Prior Testimony and Publications

An expert’s prior testimony, reports, articles, presentations, and publications often provide valuable insight into how the expert approaches issues and whether those positions are consistent over time.

Experienced attorneys routinely examine prior testimony to identify potential impeachment material, contradictory opinions, or positions that may affect the expert’s credibility.

Consistency does not require that an expert always reach the same conclusion. Rather, it requires that opinions be grounded in reliable methodology and supported by the facts of each case.

Evaluate Communication Skills

One of the most overlooked aspects of expert witness selection is communication.

An expert may possess exceptional technical knowledge yet struggle to explain complex concepts in a manner that judges and jurors can understand. The most effective expert witnesses are able to communicate clearly, remain composed under pressure, and explain technical issues using plain language without sacrificing accuracy.

The ability to educate rather than advocate is often one of the strongest indicators of an effective expert witness.

Consider Objectivity and Independence

Courts expect expert witnesses to provide objective, independent opinions based on the evidence. Experts who appear to function as advocates rather than neutral analysts often face credibility challenges.

An expert should be willing to identify both favorable and unfavorable facts, acknowledge limitations in the evidence, and modify opinions when new information warrants a different conclusion.

Objectivity strengthens credibility and often enhances the persuasive value of expert testimony.

Use a Clear Written Engagement Agreement

Once an expert has been selected, a written engagement agreement should establish expectations regarding:

• Scope of services
• Confidentiality
• Billing practices
• Document handling
• Report preparation
• Deposition and trial availability
• Retention and preservation of materials

A well-drafted engagement agreement helps avoid misunderstandings and establishes a professional framework for the relationship between counsel and the expert.

The Right Expert Can Make a Difference

Selecting an expert witness involves more than identifying someone with impressive credentials. The most effective experts combine relevant qualifications, practical experience, sound methodology, credibility, communication skills, and professional independence.

Careful evaluation at the beginning of an engagement can help ensure that the expert ultimately retained will provide meaningful assistance throughout the litigation process and, if necessary, present persuasive and credible testimony at deposition and trial.

In security-related litigation, the right expert witness should not merely offer opinions. The expert should help counsel understand the evidence, identify relevant issues, evaluate industry practices, and assist the court in understanding complex security concepts through objective and evidence-based analysis.

Security cameras are everywhere. When an incident occurs, one of the first questions is almost always: “Did they have cameras?”

But here’s an important truth that often gets overlooked:

SECURITY CAMERAS ARE NOT CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES.

That’s not a criticism of cameras. It’s a recognition of what they actually do—and what they don’t.

Deterrence ≠ Prevention
Cameras can deter some opportunistic crime by increasing the perceived risk of being identified later. This works best for theft, vandalism, and trespass—situations where someone is weighing risk versus reward.

Prevention is different. A preventive measure can interrupt a crime in progress, block access, summon help, or change conditions in real time. Cameras don’t do that on their own.

Cameras Don’t Intervene
By the time a camera is recording an assault or violent act, the decision to offend has already been made. The harm is already unfolding. Cameras don’t step in, de-escalate, or protect someone in the moment.

Unless a trained person is actively monitoring and able to respond, a camera is a silent witness—not a protector.

The Capable Guardianship Gap
Effective security requires capable guardianship: the ability to see risk and act on it. Unmonitored cameras can observe, but they cannot act. Without response, there is no real-time protection.

Where Cameras Do Add Value
Cameras are useful and appropriate when:
• Risks are low to moderate
• Crime is primarily property-related
• They support other security measures
• The goal includes documentation and accountability

They are support tools—not stand-alone solutions.

The False Sense of Security Problem
When properties install cameras and promote “security” without monitoring or response, the result isn’t increased safety. It’s recorded danger.

Security theater looks reassuring, but it doesn’t prevent harm.

Bottom Line
• Cameras may deter some crime
• Cameras document incidents
• Cameras do not prevent violence
• Cameras do not replace people or response

Recording crime is not the same as preventing it.

Thoughtful security isn’t about how much you can capture on video—it’s about how much harm you can reasonably prevent.

When injuries result from violent criminal acts, claims are sometimes asserted that a property owner or operator failed to take reasonable measures related to security. Such claims most often involve commercial or multi-occupant premises, including shopping centers, hotels, office buildings, schools, parking facilities, and residential complexes.

From an analytical standpoint, these matters focus on issues of control, knowledge, and reasonableness, rather than the mere fact that a criminal act occurred.

Duty and Foreseeability

Under general common-law principles, property owners are not insurers of safety and are typically not responsible for preventing all third-party criminal acts. A duty to take protective action may arise only under limited circumstances, including when criminal activity is objectively foreseeable and when measures reasonably available at the time could have been considered.

Accordingly, evaluation typically considers:

• What information was known or reasonably available at the time
• Whether relevant risks were identifiable in advance
• Whether decisions or actions taken were reasonable in context—not perfect, and not judged in hindsight

Evaluating Security Through “Rules of the Road”

In premises-security analysis, complex issues are sometimes discussed using basic operational principles for clarity. These “rules of the road” are not legal conclusions and not outcome-determinative; they are analytical tools used to evaluate conduct in light of generally accepted practices.

Depending on the facts, commonly examined considerations may include:

• Whether the property had mechanisms to become aware of site-specific conditions
• Whether known conditions were addressed or monitored in some manner
• Whether any security measures in place were consistent with the property’s use, layout, and activity
• Whether environmental conditions, such as lighting and visibility, were maintained

These considerations may be informed by applicable codes, ordinances, industry guidance, or internal policies, where relevant. The existence of such considerations does not, by itself, establish a breach of duty; context and proportionality remain critical.

Common Areas of Review (Not Presumptive Failures)

In conducting security evaluations, experts may consider areas such as:

• Security staffing, if any, and how it was intended to function
• Lighting and general visibility conditions
• Access control practices and property layout
• Management oversight and operational practices
• Hiring, training, and supervision of personnel, where applicable
• Actions taken following prior incidents, if relevant

Each of these areas requires fact-specific analysis. The absence of a particular measure does not automatically indicate negligence, nor does the presence of security measures imply that risk can or should have been eliminated.

Factors That May Receive Juror Attention

In litigation, jurors may focus on certain factual comparisons, including:

• Differences in security practices between properties
• Changes in resources or operations over time
• Changes in property use or activity levels
• Documented complaints or communications related to safety
• Compliance or non-compliance with applicable statutes or ordinances

Such factors may be relevant to evaluation, but they must be interpreted without hindsight bias and within the operational realities existing at the time of the incident.

Key Takeaway

Premises-security cases are not determined by the occurrence of crime alone. They involve evaluating whether decisions made before an incident were reasonable, informed, and consistent with what was known or reasonably identifiable at the time.

Objective analysis requires:

• Avoiding hindsight
• Distinguishing site-specific foreseeability from general crime conditions
• Separating aspirational practices from required standards of care
• Evaluating conduct based on evidence and context—not outcomes

This framework allows courts and juries to assess responsibility without converting security guidance into guarantees of safety or imposing retroactive obligations.

Disclaimer: This content discusses general evaluation concepts consistent with professional security industry guidance. It is not intended to define legal obligations, substitute for case-specific analysis, or express conclusions about any individual matter.

__

Forensic Security Liability Expert Witness Michael J. Canaan, CPP, is a board-certified Security Management professional with nearly 45 years of experience in military service, law enforcement, corporate and private investigations, and security. He has contributed his expertise to approximately 100 security premises liability cases.

Common Challenges Faced by Expert Witnesses in the Courtroom

Serving as an expert witness can be one of the most rewarding aspects of professional practice. Experts play an important role in helping judges and juries understand technical, scientific, operational, and industry-specific issues that fall outside the knowledge of the average person. At the same time, expert testimony presents unique challenges that require preparation, discipline, and professionalism.

Preparation Is Essential

Effective expert testimony begins long before entering the courtroom. An expert must thoroughly understand the facts, evidence, opinions, and methodology supporting their conclusions. Inadequate preparation can lead to confusion, inconsistent testimony, or an inability to explain the basis for an opinion under cross-examination.

A well-prepared expert should be familiar not only with their report and supporting materials but also with the strengths, limitations, and assumptions underlying their analysis.

Staying Within the Scope of Expertise

One of the most common mistakes made by experts is venturing beyond their area of expertise. Courts retain experts because of their specialized knowledge and experience. Attempting to provide opinions outside that area can undermine credibility and create opportunities for effective cross-examination.

Experienced experts recognize the limits of their expertise and are comfortable acknowledging when a subject falls outside their qualifications.

Maintaining Independence and Objectivity

The most effective experts are those who remain objective and independent. An expert witness is not an advocate for either party. Rather, the expert’s role is to evaluate the evidence, apply relevant principles and methodologies, and provide opinions based upon the available facts and data.

Jurors and judges are often quick to recognize when an expert appears to be advocating for a particular outcome rather than providing an independent analysis. Credibility is strengthened when opinions are evidence-based and consistent regardless of which party retained the expert.

Communicating Complex Information Clearly

Expert witnesses frequently address technical subjects that may be unfamiliar to judges and jurors. The ability to explain complex concepts in a clear, understandable manner is often just as important as technical expertise itself.

Effective testimony avoids unnecessary jargon, uses plain language whenever possible, and focuses on helping the factfinder understand the significance of the evidence.

Responding to Cross-Examination

Cross-examination is an expected and important part of the judicial process. Opposing counsel may challenge qualifications, methodologies, assumptions, prior testimony, publications, or conclusions. Experts should expect their opinions to be scrutinized and should be prepared to explain and defend their work.

The most effective approach is to remain calm, listen carefully to each question, answer truthfully, and avoid becoming argumentative or defensive.

Consistency Matters

Expert credibility depends heavily on consistency. Opinions expressed in reports, depositions, declarations, and courtroom testimony should remain consistent unless new information justifies a change in opinion.

When modifications are necessary, the basis for those changes should be clearly explained and supported by the evidence.

Understanding the Legal Environment

While experts are not expected to be attorneys, familiarity with courtroom procedures, deposition practice, evidentiary standards, and expert witness obligations can significantly improve effectiveness. Understanding the litigation process helps experts communicate more effectively with counsel and present their opinions more confidently.

Professionalism and Ethics

Professional conduct is essential throughout an engagement. Experts should maintain honesty, transparency, and integrity in all aspects of their work. Opinions should be based upon reliable information, accepted methodologies, and the expert’s actual knowledge and experience.

Equally important is the willingness to acknowledge limitations, uncertainties, or facts that may not support a preferred conclusion. In many cases, credibility is enhanced when an expert candidly identifies both strengths and weaknesses in the available evidence.

Protecting Professional Reputation

An expert witness’s reputation is one of their most valuable professional assets. Every report, deposition, and courtroom appearance contributes to that reputation. Thorough preparation, objective analysis, ethical conduct, and professional demeanor help establish credibility that extends beyond any single case.

Conclusion

Successful expert testimony requires far more than technical knowledge. It demands preparation, objectivity, effective communication, professional discipline, and a commitment to ethical practice. By remaining focused on the evidence, staying within the boundaries of their expertise, and communicating clearly and honestly, expert witnesses can provide valuable assistance to the court while maintaining the credibility upon which their profession depends.